However, it's going to happen and it might not necessarily all be bad. Just different

there's no doubting it will be different but I wonder how many of those who want the jobs we have in the locations we are in will be terribly disappointed with what working for UKSAR on a shoestring will actually be like.

Miminal and temporary infrastructure, few perks and minimum flying hours for training, I suspect the shock might be just as big for those coming from existing civSAR flights as from the mil ones. Add in the pecking order of seniority within the company and the individual pay scales depending on how good a bluffer you are and it all makes for a jolly time.

Mobility of the workforce is one thing but if you have to live near your base then you have your other half to keep happy - what is the schooling like in Caernavon for instance? How much will you have to pay for a house in Aberdeen? Or St Mawgan?

Sadly it is all in the lap of the Gods (or rather the civil servants who think they are) and even if it doesn't work very well, the MCA PR machine will make it look like it does

What is this nonesense about poor accomodation under the new contract? Anyone ever been to Lee or Portland, never mind the refurb at Stornoway? Seems to me the MCA dont believe in portacabins, tents or any such rubbish, and we can expect new accomodation that is up to the latest environmental, HSE and other legal standards. Wonder how long it would have taken the MoD to sort that - look at Chivenor! Looking at the DfT requirements documents, there's a whole section needed on any bidder's infrastructure response. Not sure that indicates any intention to go cheap! Sorry if some of you ex-mil guys who may get employed in the new service may have to move to some different places, if as the guessers suggest there will be new operating locations, but I don't believe that's going to deter anyone who is worth employing.

This debate is now verging into seeing demons for the sake of demons - or just Crab in wind-up mode?

I do think that there will be a few different locations. I also think that this is what will wake Joe Public up to what is happening. Prepare for several months of mis-reported rubbish in the press about misunderstood basing decisions during spring 2013.

However, here and elsewhere, I think the location card is over-played.

Jimf, I agree. Looking at whats going on near me on the South Coast and the rubbish that gets reported we can only imagine the drivel that will be forthcoming.

No doubt some MPs will chip in as well around the country, and as usual completely miss the truth for the sake of a few goody points on their "vote for me" credentials.

All that matters for basing other than they have suitable infrastructure to cuddle the helos and personnel is that they are spread across the country to provide an equally responsive service to any UK citizen anywhere. Within reason and sensible cost of course and perhaps a bit of sensible bias where we know there will be quite a call on the service. Sorry Crab but there has to be a cash limit in any era and many taxpayers if they were ever really to take an interest might ask why they are already paying so much for loads of helos etc that dont do much for 90% of the time.

Unfortunately, SAR helos carry similar emotional baggage to the ever so precious NHS and local hospital closures or service changes although only to those near where they are based. IMO the media so often miss the point and the media only throw fuel onto the fires rather than try a bit of objective analysis and proper journalistic reporting. So much ill informed drivel gets written about the impact of any change whatever it might be. No doubt we will even read of wasting money on "dangerous US choppers" instead of the "trusty (heavily unserviceable and out of date) Prince William Sea King".

Don't confuse what has been on offer with previous contracts with what might just come on the 'lowest bidder' contract since the MCA don't care what happens with accommodation as long as they can show pictures of shiny aircraft waiting to save lives at each flight.

Whilst on the subject of cash - how is it that a company who have already been operating 4 UK SAR flights can be undercut by 20%? Surely they should have a good idea of what it will and won't cost to run UKSAR.

Are we going to be faced with a similar comedy to the recent railway fiasco where Virgin had to point out that First had got their sums badly wrong and the contract award had to be reversed?

It is the same contract drones from the DfT who were responsible for that who will be scrutinising and awarding the SAR contract - if they award it to someone who has 'got their sums wrong' we could be faced with a failed service after a year or two, no military option to save the day, and a taxpayer-funded bailout of that mysterious 20%.

Or perhaps we will see the BAE school of contract management - bid 50% of what the contract will cost, identify some errors in the contract spec but keep schtum until it is signed and ensure that any modifications to the contract are subject to the contractor's rates - suddenly a small amendment costs the other 50% but it's not their fault.

Whilst on the subject of cash - how is it that a company who have already been operating 4 UK SAR flights can be undercut by 20%? Surely they should have a good idea of what it will and won't cost to run UKSAR.

I have bored you all before with what I wrote elsewhere in early 2010. Never mind, here's another gem.

"UK-based helicopter contractors are still smarting over the injury of CHC coming over here and taking the MCA contract from under their noses. Now the same thing is happening with SAR-H. These guys want blood."

Sage words Jimf indeed. Bristow were always going to fight to the death. Conspiracy theorists can and will dwell on CHC's bidding tactics, and often it can be more than meets the eye, especially if you think you are going to lose anyway. Crab anyone has to admire your stubborn persistence and continued cynicism about the DFT and MCA. Anyone would think you had been working for them. Oh no I forgot, you haven't or you wouldn't be writing on here would you. What I know is that your endless lowest bidder twitterings are not supportable in this case. Government contracts can work that lowest cost way, or by the best value for money approach. By EU law they have to decide which, and my understanding is that the SAR competition is being run under the value for money approach. Of course, no government is going to pay a too high price (CHC?) but neither can the UK government simply go for the lowest tender. If you check out the evaluation rules on the DFT's website (yes I know its sad that I have bothered to) it makes this clear and also is clear what rules are used to eliminate those bidders that are simply too costly. Finally in this day and age it is simply ridiculous to imagine that either remaining bidder will bid too low and undermine themselves and if you think so you simply have no idea how the funding or senior management of the big commercial helicopter companies work these days.

Just hope this doesn't unravel in the future as the West Coast rail bidding did when someone points out it can't be done for the winning bid. Surely the present incumbent of part of the system (CHC) couldn't be that far out with the figures?

Look at NPAS, the 'savings' are already being revised down by as much as 20%.

It's interesting that the EU Treaty of Rome approach has come up. Also, the approach of the DfT and MCA.

In Sweden, the SMA and Norrlandsflyg situation was largely about the indigenous helicopter market not being big enough. Is the market big enough even in the UK? In this so-called competition, we are left with Bristow and Bond; the usual suspects; and the expectation that the DfT will require a two-contractor solution to provide commercial resilience. In reality, perhaps we're not substantially better off than Sweden.

The MCA won't get any easier to deal with as the years pass. The Weakest Link in this whole matter may appear invulnerable but it is not the case. In a Single Market, what possible reason is there for member states to retain coastguard services? The European Parliament has been asking that question for some time and only intransigence on the part of the Council and Commission has prevented the further development of the EMSA. An empire set to crumble behaves in strange ways.

The original SARH was usually reported to be a contract worth £5-7bn for 25 years. Let's call it £6bn = £0.24bn per year. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the article in the link below but Shephard's estimated £2-3bn (let's call it £2.5bn less the now infamous 20% = £2bn) for just a 10 year contract looks almost as expensive at £0.2bn per year.

Wasn't SARH originally reviewed shortly after the coalition came to power and realised that an expensive PFI was going to hoover up the nation's funds for the next 25 years? Apart from the contract length, how is son of SARH any different? £40m difference per year is loose change even for a hard up government. For the extra £40m we could have had Boulmer and Portland surviving and genuine harmonisation across all bases.

The original OJEU contract notice states at II.2.1), Total quantity or scope (including all lots and options, if applicable), ... Estimated value excluding VAT: Range between: 2,000,000,000 and 3,100,000,000 GBP.

Finally in this day and age it is simply ridiculous to imagine that either remaining bidder will bid too low and undermine themselves and if you think so you simply have no idea how the funding or senior management of the big commercial helicopter companies work these days.

Seven years’ ago this month, the MCA announced that CHC had won the Interim SAR-H contract with a mixed fleet solution of seven new delivery S-92 and AB139 platforms, operated from four UK bases with some 100 front and rear crew, engineers and support staff too, for a period of 5-years’ and all for just £100m.

That’s an awfully low bid, so I suspect CHC gambled that winning Interim SAR would place them as the front runner for the 25-year SAR-H contract, and it paid off (well almost) as they were the operator for the winning bidder, Soteria.

The original SAR-H PFI was to find the most 'Economically Advantageous’ bid was it not, and it was rumoured that Soteria was not the cheapest bidder. If correct, one has to assume that the IPT believed that they offered the most credible low risk solution, but not the cheapest.

UK SAR aside, it appears to have been a good year for CHC in the O&G sector, so a couple of strategic and commercial thoughts come to mind. However, I cannot help but wonder if the cloud that has been left hanging above CHC’s head these past 2-years’ played a part in some way. I mean, were they ever in with a realistic chance of coming out on top, or were they just strung along to keep another strong bidder from having a clear advantage prior to the final stages and thereby destroying any chance of a competition?

It will be interesting to see who eventually wins and with what solution.

The original SARH was usually reported to be a contract worth £5-7bn for 25 years. Let's call it £6bn = £0.24bn per year. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the article in the link below but Shephard's estimated £2-3bn (let's call it £2.5bn less the now infamous 20% = £2bn) for just a 10 year contract looks almost as expensive at £0.2bn per year.

Wasn't SARH originally reviewed shortly after the coalition came to power and realised that an expensive PFI was going to hoover up the nation's funds for the next 25 years? Apart from the contract length, how is son of SARH any different? £40m difference per year is loose change even for a hard up government. For the extra £40m we could have had Boulmer and Portland surviving and genuine harmonisation across all bases.

Could it be that the coalition felt the figures thrown around for the original SAR-H were unrealistically low to ensure/guarantee the provision of service required over the time period, hence the seemingly higher amounts for the Long SAR bids.